[Scrum] Confused about these 2 scrum laws. Help please !

[Blackberry]

Law reference for penalising someone for "standing up" please?

Huh? 20.3 a. ..for starters.

PS Really like your username, much better than mine which I chose because I looked out at a blackberry bush when I first signed up. Are you thunder horse after the sound they make as they gallop past or because of the sound they make for the rest of the time, especially when they are eating. Please tell me its the first.

 

[Blackberry]

Not sure where you arebgetting that from BB?

Here's the picture from law 20 on the WR site...
... and it shows blue scrumhalf offside line through the rear feet ?





http://laws.worldrugby.org/images/laws/scrum-offside-en.jpg




didds

Hang on, hang on Didds. You know the laws..pretty damn well actually. Are you REALLY a coach?

 

[didds]

Sorry BB... guilty as charged

didds

 

[ChrisR]

Huh? 20.3 a. ..for starters.

20.3(a) doesn't cover it.

20.3(i) does but doesn't indicate fault or apply sanction.

(i) Player forced upwards. If a player in a scrum is lifted in the air, or is forced upwards out of
the scrum, the referee must blow the whistle immediately so that players stop pushing.

A 2016 (?) amendment to Advantage law now allows advantage to be played if a player stands (or is forced) up unless his feet leave the ground. Although we see 'standing up' being PKd I think that is in error.

 

[Blackberry]

20.3(a) doesn't cover it.

Yes it does. You break your binding...ping. Pretty clear.

 

[didds]

I agree with BB - but the definitions in 20.3 talk about binding on a teammate.

DEFINITIONS
When a player binds on a team-mate that player must use the whole arm from hand to shoulder to grasp the team-mate’s body at or below the level of the armpit. Placing only a hand on another player is not satisfactory binding.

props don't bind on a team mate.

Props are also covered by 20.3(c) and 20.3(d) - neither of which mention anything about armpit-to-wrist etc, just where the grip must be made etc.

TBH, I would have thought "standing up" is more likely transgressing

20.2 Front-row players’ positions
(a) All players in a position to shove. When a scrum has formed, the body and feet of each front row player must be in a normal position to make a forward shove.

didds

 

[ChrisR]

Yes it does. You break your binding...ping. Pretty clear.

Standing up does not mean breaking the bind. Why seek an incorrect PK when no advantage has accrued and the amendment allows the ball to be played away?

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

Standing up does not mean breaking the bind. Why seek an incorrect PK when no advantage has accrued and the amendment allows the ball to be played away?

Agreed.

Often when "standing up" a prop will break his bind but the standing up in and of itself is not an offence, so it should not always be penalisable.

Didds are you saying you can't push/shove something while standing up? Not as effective position to push, agreed, but surely doesn't constitute being not in a position to make a normal shove. And the sanction for this is a FK, not a penalty, just as an aside.

 

[Decorily]

20.8( g) covers a multitude and "...do anything that is likely to collapse. ..." would seem to cover standing up!

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

20.8( g) covers a multitude and "...do anything that is likely to collapse. ..." would seem to cover standing up!

I would have thought standing up prevents the likelihood of collapse! It's almost the first opposite thing!

I just think we should be more careful when talking about "standing up". The penalty should (as I see it) be for not binding. Words and use of language matters. If you start giving penalties for things that are not actually penalisable (even if based on an honest and largely correct interpretation of law) you can leave yourself vulnerable.

 

[Decorily]

It might prevent the person standing up collapsing but not everyone else. A mass of bodies is pushing on a props ass who in turn is pushing on an opposing body. They anticipate that body taking the pressure but the opposing body suddenly stands up and changes the dynamic. How is that not possibly going to lead to a collapse.?

 

[The Fat]

We have discussed this one previously and the response I got from the ARU was that standing up in the scrum is considered to be breaking your bind as in not maintaining your bind continuously from the start to finish of the scrum.
This was communicated to me as the reasoning used by SANZAR "although tenuous as it may be".


(a) Binding by all front row players. All front row players must bind firmly and continuously from the start to the finish of the scrum.
Sanction: Penalty kick


My comment at the time was that if it was to be penalised as breaking the bind, then the elite boys should be instructed to use the "unbinding" secondary signal rather than the made up one where the referee bends his elbow to 90 degrees and raises the forearm to imitate a standing up action

 

[didds]

Agreed.

Often when "standing up" a prop will break his bind but the standing up in and of itself is not an offence, so it should not always be penalisable.

Didds are you saying you can't push/shove something while standing up? Not as effective position to push, agreed, but surely doesn't constitute being not in a position to make a normal shove. And the sanction for this is a FK, not a penalty, just as an aside.

I'm making a stab at what the standing up sanctions are under. Frankly, on reflection, I don't buy the stand up = break bind thing either, particularly when 20.3 definitions only mention bending to a team mate. The only binds required for props in 20.3 are solely connected to where the prop binds on the opponent and where his arm goes in regard to his oppo prop.

Yes you can push with your chest naturally. I just don't think that is what the law makers mean when they talk about a pushing forwards position. And is certainly not what we coach in Scrum Factory CPD etc. As ever, the laws as writ need some interpretation.

didds

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

I'm making a stab at what the standing up sanctions are under. Frankly, on reflection, I don't buy the stand up = break bind thing either, particularly when 20.3 definitions only mention bending to a team mate. The only binds required for props in 20.3 are solely connected to where the prop binds on the opponent and where his arm goes in regard to his oppo prop.

Yes you can push with your chest naturally. I just don't think that is what the law makers mean when they talk about a pushing forwards position. And is certainly not what we coach in Scrum Factory CPD etc. As ever, the laws as writ need some interpretation.

didds

I agree completely in practice - I'm just being pedantic with wording. The Fat I think sums it up perfectly, but it is clear the perception lives on as Christy used the phrase in the earlier post.

 

[didds]

meanwhile - thankyou The fat

didds

 

[Pegleg]

props don't bind on a team mate.

didds

Sorry but who binds on the hooker?

 

[didds]

ah - fair comment of course. OK then - I don't see props standing up losing a full bind from armpit to wrist on the hooker.

e.g.

In this world where standing up is because of broken binds, where is the broken bind on a teammate as per the definitions, if we have to insist that its the case, rarther than just accept (as doiI) that whether right or wrong that is how WR sees it and justifies it.?




didds

 

[thepercy]

20.3(a) doesn't cover it.

20.3(i) does but doesn't indicate fault or apply sanction.

(i) Player forced upwards. If a player in a scrum is lifted in the air, or is forced upwards out of
the scrum, the referee must blow the whistle immediately so that players stop pushing.

A 2016 (?) amendment to Advantage law now allows advantage to be played if a player stands (or is forced) up unless his feet leave the ground. Although we see 'standing up' being PKd I think that is in error.

If a front row stands up to relieve the pressure, they have unbound IMHO.

 

[didds]

If a front row stands up to relieve the pressure, they have unbound IMHO.

from whom in what manner, under what law?

didds

 

[Pegleg]

Quite often both front rows are standing up so binds are maintained but it is deemed one stood up first. In these situation neither side has broken a bind.